Faced with growing repression by Muslims, Christians from an ancient tradition in Iraq are calling on American political leaders for help before their entire community is extinguished.

Christian Assyrians and some of their supporters demonstrated in front of the White House yesterday, highlighting an alarming trend reported by the U.N.: While representing just 5 percent of the Iraqi population, 40 percent of the refugees fleeing the country are Assyrians.

One of the speakers at the rally, Nina Shea of Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom in D.C., told WND that because of the "ethnic cleansing," the Christians want an autonomous district in Iraq they can administrate.

The zone, called the Nineveh Plains Administrative Unit, would allow Assyrians and other Christians to practice their faith, speak and teach their language, and work their land without fear of persecution.

Unlike the Sunnis and Shiites, the Christians have no militia and are completely defenseless, Shea said.

"They need to administrate their own governmental unit to protect themselves," she said. "Otherwise, with the chaos and violence and persecution targeting Christians for religious reasons, which the U.N. has documented, they will disappear.

Shea insisted it's in the interest of the U.S. to take a stand.

With the loss of the highly educated and skilled Christians, she argued, Iraq is "experiencing a brain drain as well as sane drain – a force of moderation and a bridge to the West."

"They have served the U.S. in Iraq nobly, and they will leave a real vacuum," said Shea.

While the Christians in Iraq have been repressed for decades, Shea pointed out, they have suffered more since the war began, with kidnappings, crucifixions and dozen of churches bombed by jihadist terror.

Among the atrocities documented this year:

Father Paulos Eskandar, of Mor Afrem Syriac Orthodox Church, was kidnapped Oct. 9 by Muslims and decapitated two days later. He was murdered despite Christians fulfilled a demand to post a text on the church doors condemning the pope's statement about Islam.

On Oct. 4, a car bomb detonated in a Christian area and killed nine people, including Georges Zara, member of the Assyrian Chaldean Syriac National Council.

A 14-year-old boy was crucified and stabbed in the stomach, mimicking what was done to Jesus, in Albasra.

On Oct. 21, in Baquba, a group of veiled Muslims attacked a workplace where a 14-year-old boy named Ayad Tariq worked. The men asked the boy for his identity card. After seeing he was Christian the men asked whether he was a "dirty Christian sinner." Ayad answered: "Yes, I am Christian, but I am not a sinner." The rebels yelled he was a dirty Christian sinner and continued to grab him and to scream, "Allahu, Akbar! Allahu, Akbar!" The boy then was decapitated.

In August, 13 Assyrian Christian women in Baghdad were kidnapped and murdered.

In January, churches were bombed in Basra and Baghdad.

Shea noted that the Kurds, who control the north, have been denying the Christian Assyrians many of the benefits that have come from U.S. largesse.

The electric grids created by the U.S., for example, are left to the discretion of local governments to distribute and manage, and the Christians say they aren't getting their fair share. They cite instances of Kurdish villages receiving electricity while neighboring Christian villages are denied service.

Shea said she has been raising the plight of the Iraqi Christians with the U.S. government for several years, including in a face-to-face meeting with President Bush in her role as a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

She has not received a positive response.

"One of the issues here is that the Christians don't create trouble, they are just victims," she said. "They don't blow up things, so they don't get attention.

Some have told her the U.S. government doesn't want to establish a precedent of favoritism, by responding to special pleadings.

But Shea argues, "It's not favoring one group to make sure they get their fair share of U.S. construction aid.

So are you saying Iraq meets the true definition of a nation state? I don't. I think it was an artificial creation just like Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union; all held together by brute force; just like Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. I don't think we have any business in Iraq but we are there now.

Again, what is your solution? Or do you just use sarcasm to sound like you have superior thinking? You seem to make insinuations about my thoughts that I do not think are accurate. What else do you know about me Billbears? Lastly,please state your position if you are going to satirize mine...otherwise you sound just like a democrat, all criticism and no plan.

I think it was an artificial creation just like Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union; all held together by brute force; just like Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union.

Ah but Iraq was created by Western powers trying to 'fix' a situation in 1918. By your logic we should have let it devolved long ago. Note I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it shouldn't have been established in the first place should it? Some of the fallout from the first 'spreading democracy' foreign policy

I don't think we have any business in Iraq but we are there now.

Indeed. But 'fixing' one problem always leads to 'fixing' another, and another, and well you see where this leads.

Lastly,please state your position if you are going to satirize mine.

Don't feel special, I satirize most positions when it comes to Iraq. Especially the ones that state we (being the US) need to help another downtrodden group of people. I feel for the Christians. As a Christian myself, I know they need help from private organizations to be led to a point of safety. However that does not mean I advocate the State to ensure safety within another nation does it?

otherwise you sound just like a democrat, all criticism and no plan.

Plans were suggested long ago (well three+ years seems long ago now doesn't it?). They weren't listened to then and frankly I don't think they would work now. Unfortunately, contrary to solid conservative thought, the US must stabilize the Iraqi government to some extent. What that means however is who the Iraqis vote they get, whether we like the bastard or not. Maliki seems to lean to Iran, well too bad. That's what the Iraqis apparently wanted with their purple fingers isn't it? Let Maliki's government stabilize and get out.

The sad case however is that eventually the Iraqis will elect a theocratic government and draw ever closer to Iran over the next generation. But that's what we gave them isn't it? The freedom to choose their course. And when they do, there shouldn't be complaints coming from the either side of the aisle about going to 'fix' it again.

44
posted on 12/05/2006 10:07:48 PM PST
by billbears
(Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)

I actually agree with your assessment. This is France's and Britain's mess from long ago. I do believe the Elder Bush was also in a no-win situation. Partitioning is easier said then done, I do understand that(note my first post that said a lot of hurt and death). I never believed in the pipe dream of democracy in the Middle East. I thought we would loose this war from the start (not because of the troops, but because we have an active 5th column in our country (and to take Iraq without taking Syria was just nuts (like the Syrians would just stand around doing nothing while we 'rebuild Iraq', that was very naive of the powers that be, however we could never have won world opinion on taking out Syria nor Congressional approval, so we should not have gone in at all))). But eventually Saddam would have gained some type of weapon and either used it himself or given to someone who would. A whole other mess.

I understand fixing one problem leads to making new ones (the law of unintended consequences) or leading to fixing others as you state. But by that logic, we should not have gone after Al Qaeda or stood up to NAZISM or Communism. In fact standing up to Communism is what helped create Al Qaeda as you probably well know. I want a homeland for the Christian Arabs, I will not get what I want, because nobody will seriously consider partitioning Iraq except the Iranians and the Syrians. Iraq will implode and those two countries will be there to absorb the pieces. The Kurds will be out once again (like Poland over the 300 years) and the Christians will be forced to emigrate, convert or die.

I would love to give the Kurds and the Christians the chance to fight for their own survival, that is why I would like to see a partition, but it will not happen. It is politically taboo here, but not in Damascus or Tehran...

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.